According to William Laine Craig (a Christian philosopher and Theologian) Young-earth Creationism complete nonsense, and hurts the church:
the question is : Is Young-Earth Creationism really hurting/is an embarrassment to the church?
Young-Earth Creationism is an Embarrassment - according to a Christian Philosopher
Posts
Total:
57
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
the question is : Is Young-Earth Creationism really hurting/is an embarrassment to the church?
You have to remember that it is not really reverent when the earth was created because whats important is that we are hair and what it says in the bible doesnt matter anyway. You see people they make a big deal about the bible got the time wrong well it didnt because the bible says a lot of different things by different people and they said those things at different times so of course they dont add up. So what I am saying is that it is only the atheists try to make a canyon out of a dent so they can diss the bible.
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Creation, then an ongoing process of evolution is a widely accepted principle.
Naive theistic tales should be accepted for what they are...Archaic hypotheses borne of ignorance.
"Churches" as controlling influences and financial institutions, still seem to be doing O.K.....Though time will tell.
It's all down to who will control the transfer of information from generation to generation.
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I've met Kent Hovind. He genuinely thinks that evolution is a religion
-->
@Sum1hugme
good grief. now that's an embarrassment to the church.
Also, If I can answer my own question, Young Earth Creationism is an embarrassment, since little to none serious philosophers or scientists support the view of 6,000 years.
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
So, it appears that you believe that consensus determines truth.
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I get what he's saying, and all this is over a simple misconception about the Genesis creation account. The whole "6000" year old earth is not a Biblical record, it's an unnecessary assumption and yes it's the fault of religious proponents who endorse it and challenge unbiased scientific studies. That side of it is an embarrassment because it makes it appear the religious are in opposition to science or facts when that is not the case about every Theist. That includes people like me that have to constantly defend a strawman unbelievers always stick in my face.
It's really annoying when the person I'm conversing with assumes I believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that I'm some anti-science guy. It's a joke. Whoever started this whole ridiculous idea needed a good spanking. If the Catholic Church had anything to do with it that whole system needs to be overthrown anyways and trashed, as they are the primary reasons the teachings of Jesus became so twisted and distorted from what was to be a beautiful thing.
-->
@ronjs
So, it appears that you believe that consensus determines truth.
Virtually every atheist does. They must because they think "we" are all there is, and thus "truth" IS only what we decide it is.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yeah 6000 is boarder line.
It must be more anoying when people assume that you think the universe is under 100,000 years old.
Eternal?
The earth isn't over 100,000 years old is it ?
A true Christian / A true beliver should make a post that reads.
ATHEISTS THINK THE EARTH IS OVER ONE MILLION YEARS OLD.
I mean.
What kind of idot could belive the earth is over ONE MILLION YEARS OLD.
Then just make fun of the silly atheists that think this.
That would be a true Christian post topic.
Butttttttt you guys would dare not even dream of doing something like that.
It never ceases to amuse me when I see a bunch of people who have likely never performed a scientific experiment in their life boast of how they have faith in science because they believe what they read. Even greater a marvel is when those same people who have such fanatical conviction about their most deeply held beliefs point the finger and accuse others of the very sin they themselves are guilty of.
Whether the world is 7,000 years old, billions of years old, or even if it has always been around... it was God who created it and made it so.
When the machines controlled by the world elite enslave everyone and they then claim to have transcended humanity, just remember that evolution will be used to justify it. When people start being treated as another beast at the zoo or even sport to hunt down do to overpopulation, just remember that evolution will be used to justify it.
It's already happening. As society becomes more decadent, the people become more bestial in their consciousness, and culture becomes more barbaric and unenlightened, pulling the plug on the drain will seem less and less like the moral decision to sacrifice another's life and more and more like mowing the lawn.
It doesn't really matter how old the Earth. It doesn't really matter whether evolution is science or not. What really matters is how belief in these things is being used.
-->
@ethang5
E pong isn't embarrassed.
He knows full well that 6000 years old doesn't mean 6000 years old.
And nowhere in the bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old / under 10,000 years old.
Who wants to see ( he pongs )dance?
Hey Ethan.
Do you think the earth is under ONE MILLION YEARS OLD ?
Yes. orrrrrrrrrr No.
That's
YES .
or
NO.
Good game.
Good game.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
E pong isn't embarrassed.
Nothing about Jesus could possibly embarrass me. It is rather Jesus who should be profoundly embarrassed to be associated with me in any way.
He knows full well that 6000 years old doesn't mean 6000 years old.
He knows that the bible doesn't say 6,000 years. But that won't stop people who want to castigate Christianity more than they value integrity.
And nowhere in the bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old / under 10,000 years old.
But if it did, you'd be on hand to smarmily say "6000 years old doesn't mean 6000 years old" right?
Who wants to see ( he pongs )dance?
Apparently you.... Oh, and Mrs. Ethan who raised her lovely hand when she read your post.
Hey Ethan.Do you think the earth is under ONE MILLION YEARS OLD ?
No.
Good game.Good game.
For you, not so much. But I did do a little jig for Mrs. Ethan!
The liberal SJW in you was sure I was a closet young Earther huh? Now let's see if you'll dance.
If the bible does not imply or state any age of the Earth, and says nothing about 6,000 years old, why are you talking about it, and trying to imply I would deny 6,000 years old?
Because you are dishonest. The only way you can convict the bible is if you lie. And you want to convict so badly, you are willing to lie (while not appearing to do so) to get it done.
Oh, sorry! I was supposed to let you dance! Ah, You would have dodged anyway. A good game is not one where you constantly cheat deb.
-->
@ethang5
Ouch.
Nice. Ya got me.
Ummmm, ' kicks dirt '
Give me one more.
100,000 Thang ?
Do you think the earth is under 100,000 years old ?
Just a.
YES
or
NO
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
As intelligent as Craig is, he can also be an embarassment to the church.
Technically, it is the year 7529 Anno Mundi. That means we are in the eighth millenium.
Not 6000 years ago, y'all off by like 2,000 years.
Git yer facts right y'all ;)
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
the question is : Is Young-Earth Creationism really hurting/is an embarrassment to the church?
Yes. A group belief which contradicts verifiable and objective facts of reality would be an embarrassment for any individuals within that group who value what's actually true. I agree with WLC.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It must be more anoying when people assume that you think the universe is under 100,000 years old.Eternal?The earth isn't over 100,000 years old is it ?
Why do I need to claim how old an earth is? for what purpose? why would I even need to address such a question? since I have no idea, other than what's been presented I really don't care except that it would be interesting to know. So in all honesty I don't need to be associated with any claims of it whatsoever. Thanks Deb!
The question is not "how old is this planet"...it's...."was it created", or "was it formed, and then processed/produced into an inhabitable planet" more accurately. How old it is, is simply irrelevant to that question.
So in other words, even if the earth is billions of years old, it's still compatible with the creation hypothesis. This whole ongoing battle about YEC vs materialism is really besides the point. The productions of the universe give it away that intelligence is a key factor. Creationism is therefore an unavoidable conclusion. Given that there are only two options, only one of those options aligns with commonsense logic.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
And nowhere in the bible does it say the universe is millions of years old.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Which verifiable facts might you be referring to, since science cannot totally prove anything.
-->
@ronjs
And nowhere in the bible does it say the universe is millions of years old.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about the age of the earth, so in relation to that book the question is redundant to begin with.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Actually, it says, "in the beginning" , if God wanted to indicate deep time, he could have, but a plain reading of Genesis indicates otherwise when taken in context unless one ignores grammatic rules and tries to for long periods of time into the narrative.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
God can be explained by the following fact. Most people (about 68 percent) have an IQ between 85 and 115. Only a small fraction of people have a very low IQ (below 70) or a very high IQ (above 130). The average IQ in the United States is 98.
-->
@Theweakeredge
More story telling, saying it's so, doesn't make it so.
-->
@ronjs
i didn't just say so - I provided sources which demonstrate my claims. You are ignoring evidence.
-->
@ronjs
Actually, it says, "in the beginning"
Since when does "in the beginning" tell an age of the earth?
if God wanted to indicate deep time, he could have, but a plain reading of Genesis indicates otherwise when taken in context unless one ignores grammatic rules and tries to for long periods of time into the narrative.
You're completely missing the point, if there is no record or passage that gives an age to the earth then there is no reason to assume one. So there's no issue with letting experts give their accurate advice.
More story telling, saying it's so, doesn't make it so.
Story telling? what problem is it that you have with an expert showing the estimated age of the earth? you're not making a lick of sense. You are causing a conflict where there doesn't need to be one, that's part of the problem here.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Actually you provided more stories, based on one interpretation of the evidence, in fact most scientists use tentative language when reporting their findings, which many, including the media, ignore.
-->
@ronjs
Actually you provided more stories, based on one interpretation of the evidence, in fact most scientists use tentative language when reporting their findings, which many, including the media, ignore.
But what problem is it that you have with them reporting an estimation through dating? why do you have an issue with the earth being perhaps billions of years old? I don't understand your opposition here.